National Defence Committee on Oct. 18th, 2022

[LGen Eric Kenny]

I can start on that.

We need to recognize that we're short of experienced personnel right now, but the modernization of the Royal Canadian Air Force, from my perspective, is quite exciting. We're going to see delivery of many capabilities in the coming years that will allow us to meet the operational capabilities and expectations of our allies. It will take us time to get there.

On top of that, we do have capabilities right now that are delivering around the world, and I'm quite proud of that, whether it's our CP-140s operating currently in Japan doing UN Security Council resolution enforcement against North Korea or our F-18s currently deployed in Romania and providing enhanced policing. I can go on.

We're doing what we need to with the capacity we have right now. The modernization efforts are definitely at pace, recognizing the personnel challenges.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Through you, Mr. Chair, to Vice-Admiral Topshee, the navy has begun to deploy “less-experienced sailors on operations” and it has eliminated other positions due to “an unprecedented personnel shortage”.

What have CAF, DND and the navy done to manage this crisis and ensure that women and men in uniform are being kept from harm's way?

[VAdm Angus Topshee]

Navies have always trained predominantly through on-the-job experience at sea. For much of my career, we were able to send people who had the maximum amount of training to sea. We made sure that the crews we sent to sea were trained probably well beyond the level that was required.

As we look at this today, we need to take some of those experienced sailors off of the ships and put them into the training institutions in order to ensure that we can continue to deliver the sailors we need for the future navy. I am comfortable that the level of quality of the crews we are deploying today is at least as good as it has been in the past. The talent among our sailors is remarkable, and we have a very robust sea training staff on both coasts to make sure that the quality level is sustained throughout.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

I'd like to follow up, Mr. Chairman, on the questions that Mr. Bezan was asking about China recruiting retired air force pilots from Canada.

To that, I'd like to move:

That the Committee call the Minister of National Defence to testify concerning the credible reports that Royal Canadian Air Force trained pilots have undertaken employment by the People's Republic of China to train their air force; and that the Minister appear for no fewer than two hours within the next seven days.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

That motion is not part of the subject matter of this particular study. It is, however, with 48 hours, in proper order. I'll consider it to be tabled.

I'm assuming that we don't need to debate that motion at this point. You want to table it, and then, at the next meeting, you want to debate it.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

We object to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Well, that's my ruling. Do you wish to challenge the chair on that ruling?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Not at this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay. Thank you.

The ruling is that the motion is in order. The motion, however, does need 48 hours for a debate. I will attempt to set aside time for that on Thursday.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order to correct the record. I stand to be corrected on this myself, but from the article I read, I don't believe they're Canadian pilots.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I imagine that's part of the debate. Whether they are or they are not, I don't really know. We're relying on a newspaper article. Presumably there's some credibility to that. I just don't know.

As I say, if Ms. Gallant wishes to raise the motion on Thursday, it will be in order.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Did I hear correctly, Ms. Gallant, that your motion refers to them as Canadian pilots?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

It refers to people who have been trained in the Royal Canadian Air Force as pilots. It applies to this study because we have a shortage of pilots—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're not arguing that point any more. I've already made a ruling.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

It's relevant though, this motion. We have a shortage of pilots, and that's exactly what we're discussing, the ability to protect our Arctic.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're discussing your motion. I've already ruled that the motion is in order. I've already ruled the motion will need 48 ours. We'll debate it at that point.

You have a minute and 15 seconds left for further questions of the witnesses.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Vice-Admiral Topshee, if the Harry DeWolf is ready to conduct force generation activities, what number of people on board for Operation Nanook will be new recruits who will be receiving that training for the very first time?

[VAdm Angus Topshee]

The crew of the Harry DeWolf is roughly 68 people when it goes off on Operation Nanook. A portion of those are always doing their first journey up north. How many of those are in their first year of service is a more difficult question, because we don't send anyone who is not qualified. We actually have introduced a new....

We're in the process of developing an expedited entry plan, whereby you will see sailors who are trained really just to do general duties on board ships deploy with all Canadian Navy ships wherever they go. It will be a small number, and it will give them an opportunity to experience life in the navy and make the best determination about what occupation they'd like to be trained for.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

The final question for this round is Ms. O'Connell.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To go back to my earlier question, what's the preparation to ensure that we're staying up to date and relevant with emerging changes and the most recent nature of combat or security changes?

[LGen Eric Kenny]

NORAD's role is to provide aerospace warning and aerospace control. I think that speaks to the particular nature of this question when it comes to a continental defence perspective.

With the over-the-horizon radars that will be developed as per the NORAD modernization, some of the space-based capabilities that we described earlier, the sustainment of the North Warning System and the upgrades that we're doing with our F-18s right now—the 36 F-18s as part of the Hornet extension project—and then the future fighter capability, we're developing the capabilities to better sense.

You're speaking also of the ability to counter small or micro UASs that are becoming much more prevalent in theatres, which speaks a little more to the Canadian Army role, so I'll hand that over to my colleague.

[MGen Conrad Mialkowski]

In terms of observations of warfare around the world—and in the case of the army, land warfare—we're seeing certain lessons being drawn not only from Ukraine but from earlier conflicts in the region. The predominance of small UASs or unmanned aerial systems is something that not only the army but all three services in CANSOF watch very closely. We discuss it with our allies. We look to the solutions that we're doing in collaboration with allies in terms of counter-UAS measures, and that runs to a full range of pieces.

The Canadian Armed Forces has not yet selected any type of specific response to that, because the technology is rapidly emerging, but particularly in an Arctic operating environment, that is one area that deserves our continued attention.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you.

You may not have seen it, but the Library of Parliament has done a little briefing note for us on the history of NORAD after the Cold War. There's a note about changes after the September 11 terrorist attacks in the U.S., which kind of changed the mandate in terms of internal threats as well.

I guess my question is again around agility. If you look at the history and then that change after 9/11, is there a formal change within the agreement and the allies partnership in terms of taking into account the changes in the nature of security and defence, or is it just reacting to extreme events? Do you constantly review the nature of the threat or do you wait until there is a large-scale event like 9/11?

I would argue that the Russian invasion of Ukraine should give us serious thought about the nature of combat, security and defence. Is there a formal process that you have to go into with our allies in the U.S., or are you constantly having these conversations?

[LGen Eric Kenny]

We have a formal agreement, a memorandum of understanding, that formed a binational command, the only one in the world. It initially focused on aerospace warning and aerospace control and it expanded in the last decades to add maritime warning. I think that speaks to NORAD looking internally to see what we can do to expand to meet the future security environment if required, but we need to recognize that it's a binational command. We need to understand what that means as Canadians and whether or not we want to make that a binational responsibility or strictly a national responsibility.

We're so closely aligned with the U.S. in the military that irrespective of how that is formalized, we do work very closely among all our U.S. military partners to make sure that we're providing a focus on continental defence and then specifically what we are doing with the air force, navy and army, if I can speak on behalf of my colleagues, to make sure that we're thinking of those threats as we move forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Colleagues, we have seven minutes left with this very able and distinguished panel. I could basically do a minute, a minute, a minute and a minute—well, for Ms. Mathyssen, it would be half a minute....

Mr. Kelly, do you have a question for a minute?